Both my hands were full today

So you had company, too... :cool:

na, just buffet delivery! New service the Wynn is sporting.

My motto is come one come all

:eek:

OK, I can do without that image

Invade Iran?......Yeah I have been hearing that

Lets just say that no matter how much gas prices go up, or how many oil barrels are stashed away, or what genius plan the current administration dreams up it would be pure suicide. Literally and politically.

absolutely senseless-

So you are a people pleaser?

Iran isn't the aggressor here, it's the warmongers within the US government and the Bush'ists. It's the Bush'ists choice, I hope THEY choose wisely.

No, "WE" do not have sufficient resources to invade Iran. It would take at least 300% more troops and the supply trains to keep them fighting for more than 6 hours than were needed by the invasion of Iraq, keeping in mind than unlike Iraq, Iran hasn't had 10 years of constant harassment and inspections, with attendant destruction of their military capability as Iraq had had up to March 2003.

In all likelihood, the invasion would require more than 450,000 ground troops, which in turn would require over 4 million support personel, and there aren't that many available under any circumstances.

1. US invasion of Iraq.
2. China and India having a huge increase in use.
3. US military using fuel, particularly diesel, like it was air.
4. Iraqi oil mostly off the market.
5. Almost all countries attempting to stockpile petroleum now because of number one and the continuing US government caused turmoil.

See how easy that was.

http://www.strangepolitics.com/image...ent/115860.jpg

You are no better than a common leftist...You disgust me.

America is the aggressor?...You are senile.

You're confused. Drink some more Bush'ist kool-aid, it'll numb you right out.

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2784/poster6lw.jpg


Patsy-speak translation -- "America is the aggressor"; or, "It's Bushist's fault"

Obtuse to the point as always, Nul

Stop sucking the peace activist's pipe.

When you and Patsy agree, I know I am on the right track.

The term "islamofascist" has no meaning.

The association, particularly the Baathists, to Hitler makes the case for the terminology quite clear. The fact that they want world domination, death to Jews, and subjugation of the infidel only strengthens the label.

You are an apologist. You are a Patsy.

Islamofascists is another Western term for terrorists of a Muslim background.

What that has to do with Iran is where you are obtuse as always.